DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on March 11, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 10-20 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 10-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 5-6 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include, “a housing having a hollow cylindrical body with an interior surface.” The Examiner finds this limitation to be substantially the same as the removed limitation, “the housing includes: a hollow cylindrical body having an interior surface.” Since the limitation is substantially the same it is also taught by BENAIME as shown in the below rejection. Additionally, the Applicant goes on to argue that this new limitation incudes language that indicates the housing and hollow cylindrical body are the same structure. The Examiner fundamentally disagrees with this assertion. There is no indication that the housing and the hollow cylindrical body are integrated or that the housing is a hollow cylindrical body, thus the rejection remains. Lastly, the Applicant should note, that even if the current new limitation does include language that indicates the housing and hollow cylindrical body are the same structure, than it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make those pieces integral, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howarli v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIENAIME (US 20230072259 A1) in view of RAO (CN 115095391 A).
In regards to claim 10, BIENAIME teaches:
An electric generator(Fig 1; 1), comprising:
a housing(Fig 1; 3) having a hollow cylindrical body (Fig 1; 17)having an interior surface[0045];
a stator (Fig 1; 4)disposed in the housing(Fig 1; 3)[0036];
a rotor(Fig 1; 6), disposed in the stator(Fig 1; 4)[0037]; and
a plurality of stator coils (Fig 1; 9)disposed in a plurality of slots (Fig 1; 14)in the stator(Fig 1; 4)[0043];
wherein the housing (Fig 1; 3)includes:
a cooling channel (Fig 1; 17’) integrated in the hollow cylindrical body(Fig 1; 17)of the housing (Fig 1; 17’) adjacent to the interior surface[0045].
PNG
media_image1.png
509
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BIENAIME does not teach:
a cooling channel including a gyroid lattice structure
the gyroid lattice structure configured to receive a cooling fluid.
RAO teaches:
a cooling channel (Fig 1; 4)including a gyroid lattice structure (Fig 1; 10)[pg. 5; ln 12]integrated in interior surface, the gyroid lattice structure (Fig 1; 10) configured to receive a cooling fluid(the cooling fluid is air [pg 3; ln 52-60])(the lattice 10 is a gyroid [pg 4; ln 25-38]).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling channel of BIENAIME by adding the lattice structure taught by RAO in order to provide a strong support for the cooling channels. [pg 4; ln 9-10 RAO].
Additionally, the Applicant should note, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the housing 3 and hollow cylindrical body 17 of BIENAIME integral, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howarli v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
In regards to claim 11, BIENAIME, in view of RAO, teaches the electric generator of claim 10.
BIENAIME does not teach:
wherein the cooling channel includes a plurality of layers of gyroid cells.
RAO teaches:
wherein the cooling channel (Fig 1; 4) includes a plurality of layers of gyroid cells(Fig 1; 10)(The cells fill the entire channel groove so they must be layered [pg 4; ln 33-42]).
In regards to claim 12, BIENAIME, in view of RAO, teaches the electric generator of claim 10.
BIENAIME does not teach:
wherein the cooling channel includes a plurality of layers of gyroid cells.
RAO teaches:
the cooling channel (Fig 1; 4) has a volume (A volume is innate to a cooling channel).
Combination BIENAIME/RAO discloses the claimed invention except for a 14 percent of a volume of the hollow cylindrical body . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the percentage by volume of the hollow cylinder to be optimal for cooling, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 13, BIENAIME, in view of RAO, teaches the electric generator of claim 12.
BIENAIME does not teach:
wherein the cooling channel includes a plurality of layers of gyroid cells.
RAO teaches:
a thickness of the gyroid lattice structure (Fig 1; 10) and a size of each gyroid cell (Fig 1; 10)(size and thickness are innate to a structure).
Combination BIENAIME/RAO discloses the claimed invention except for a thickness of the gyroid lattice structure is approximately 0.04 inches and a size of each gyroid cell is 0.9 inches. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thickness of these parts to be optimal for cooling, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIENAIME (US 20230072259 A1) in view of RAO (CN 115095391 A), in further view of SIBBACH (US 20220029500 A1).
In regards to claim 14, BIENAIME, in view of RAO, teaches the electric generator of claim 10.
Combination BIENAIME/RAO teaches:
the hollow cylindrical body(Fig 1; 17) is formed from a material (a material is innate to a structure).
Combination BIENAIME/RAO does not teach:
wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of a Nickel Alloy, a composition with Titanium, an Aluminum Alloy, or a selected polymer;
wherein the selection is based on an intended maximum operating temperature of the electric generator.
SIBBACH teaches:
wherein the hollow cylindrical body(Fig 1; 500) is formed from a material[0029];
wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of a Nickel Alloy, a composition with Titanium, an Aluminum Alloy, or a selected polymer[0031];
wherein the selection is based on an intended maximum operating temperature of the electric generator[0006].
PNG
media_image3.png
413
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the materials used in combination BIENAIME/RAO by using the materials taught by SIBBACH in order to transfer heat more efficiently. [0006 SIBBACH].
Additionally, the Applicant should note it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.L.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights